Flanks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RAYMOND FLANKS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-6897

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al. SECTION: “G”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

This litigation arises from Plaintiff Raymond Flanks’s (“Plaintiff”) wrongful conviction

for first-degree murder in 1985. Plaintiff names as Defendants the City of New Orleans; Jason

Williams, in his official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney; and John Dillmann, in his

individual capacity (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Plaintiff alleges the Orleans Parish District

Attorney’s Office (“OPDA”) secured his wrongful conviction in violation of his constitutional

rights by withholding material exculpatory evidence in violation of OPDA’s obligations under

Brady v. Maryland.2

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Making

Arguments Contrary to Law.3 Defendants oppose the motion.4 Having considered the motion, the

memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the

motion. Plaintiff’s request is overly broad. If Plaintiff has specific objections to legal arguments

made by Defendants at trial, they may be raised at that time. However, Plaintiff has not shown a

1 See Rec. Doc. 27. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Anne Kirkpatrick and John/Jane Does #1-

20.

2 Id. at 4–5. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

3 Rec. Doc. 134.

4 Rec. Docs. 149, 153.

valid basis for prematurely limiting the arguments Defendants may make at trial. Of course, to the

extent issues arise regarding relevancy of evidence or the applicable legal standard to be applied,

those issues will be decided by the Court. Moreover, regarding any issues of law actually

previously decided by the Court, Defendants should honor and not continue to assert their

interpretations.

I. Background

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants in this Court for

alleged violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged violations of state

law.5 On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.6 This matter is set for trial on

January 12, 2026. This case is related to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful conviction in May 1985 for

the first-degree murder of Martin Carnesi.

In May 1985, a jury found Plaintiff guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Martin

Carnesi, and Plaintiff was sentenced to life in prison.7 Nearly 37 years later, on November 17,

2022, Plaintiff’s first-degree murder conviction was vacated.8 At the November 17, 2022

exoneration hearing, the “OPDA stated that ‘the State agrees that Mr. Flank’s [sic] conviction was

obtained in violation of Brady v. Maryland’ because ‘the State failed to disclose … materials [that]

are favorable, and under circumstances of the State’s case against Mr. Flank[s], material.’”9

5 Rec. Doc. 1.

6 Rec. Doc. 27.

7 Rec. Doc. 27 at 12–13.

8 Id. at 14.

9 Id.

On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants

from Making Arguments Contrary to Law.10 On December 1, 2025, Williams filed an opposition

to the motion.11 On December 1, 2025, the City, Kirkpatrick, and Dillmann (collectively, the “City

Defendants”) also filed an opposition to the motion.12

II. Parties’ Arguments

A. Plaintiff’s Arguments in Support of the Motion

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have asserted several legal positions that are contrary to

law.13 Although it is the Court’s role to instruct the jury on the law, Plaintiff submits that

Defendants should not be permitted to make arguments that incorrectly state the law and the

Court’s prior rulings, because any such argument would be improper and prejudicial.14

Specifically, with respect to Plaintiff’s claims based on OPDA’s alleged unconstitutional

custom and practice of violating its Fourteenth Amendment disclosure obligations, Plaintiff

contends OPDA should be precluded from arguing that former District Attorney Harry Connick

did not know about the unconstitutional practice and/or custom in his office and that constitutional

violations would flow from them.15 Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants should be precluded from

arguing that Plaintiff must prove the policymaker was deliberately indifferent to a custom or

practice of withholding evidence.16 Finally, Plaintiff submits that OPDA should be precluded from

10 Rec. Doc. 134.

11 Rec. Doc. 149.

12 Rec. Doc. 153.

13 Rec. Doc. 130-1 at 1.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 3.

16 Id. at 4.

arguing that Brady violations that occurred after Plaintiff’s conviction are irrelevant to the Monell

claim.17

B. Williams’s Arguments in Opposition to Motion

In opposition, Williams submits that nothing in the Court’s ruling on summary judgment

would prohibit OPDA from arguing that Connick was not aware of some or all of those alleged

incidents of Brady violations.18 With respect to Plaintiff’s argument that OPDA should be

precluded from arguing that Brady violations occurring after Plaintiff’s conviction are irrelevant

to the Monell claim, Williams acknowledges that relevancy is a question for the Court.19 However,

he asserts that OPDA should be able to argue that this evidence is unpersuasive.20 Finally, with

respect to deliberate indifference, Williams acknowledges that the Court will instruct the jury on

the law, but he asserts that OPDA should be allowed to argue that Connick was insistent on

providing due process and protecting the rights of criminal defendants and never acted with

disregard of those rights.21

C. The City Defendants’ Arguments in Opposition to the Motion

According to the City Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion is entirely speculative as it would

apply to them.22 If Plaintiff has specific objections to legal arguments made by the City Defendants

17 Id.

18 Rec. Doc. 149 at 3.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id. at 4.

22 Rec. Doc. 153 at 1.

at trial, they may be raised at that time.23 However, the City Defendants assert there is no valid

basis for prematurely limiting the arguments City Defendants may make at trial.24

III. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if: “(a) it has any tendency

to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of

consequence in determining the action.” Under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, relevant evidence

is admissible unless the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence

or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 403, “the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

The Fifth Circuit instructs that “[t]he exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 should occur only

sparingly[.]”25 “Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair prejudice,

substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under Rule

403.”26

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have asserted several legal positions that are contrary to

law.27 Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendants should be precluded from arguing that: (1)

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1149 (1994).

26 Id. at 1115–16 (quoting United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862

(1979)).

27 Rec. Doc. 130-1 at 1.

Connick did not know about the unconstitutional practice and/or custom in his office; (2) Plaintiff

must prove the policymaker was deliberately indifferent to a custom or practice of withholding

evidence; and (3) the Brady violations that occurred after Plaintiff’s conviction are irrelevant to

the Monell claim.28

Plaintiff’s request is overly broad. The Court did not grant summary judgment in Plaintiff’s

favor on the issue of whether Connick had notice about the unconstitutional practice and/or custom

in his office. The Court simply found material facts in dispute on this issue. While the Court

acknowledged that deliberate indifference is not required when the alleged custom or practice is

itself unconstitutional, deliberate indifference is a required showing on Plaintiff’s failure to train

claim. Finally, the Court found that Brady violations occurring after Plaintiff’s conviction are

relevant, but that would not preclude Defendants from arguing that this evidence is unpersuasive.

If Plaintiff has specific objections to legal arguments made by Defendants at trial, they may

be raised at that time. However, Plaintiff has not shown a valid basis for prematurely limiting the

arguments Defendants may make at trial. Of course, to the extent issues arise regarding relevancy

of evidence or the applicable legal standard to be applied, those issues will be decided by the Court.

Moreover, regarding any issues of law actually previously decided by the Court, Defendants

should honor and not continue to assert their interpretations.

Accordingly,

28 Id. at 3–5.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants

from Making Arguments Contrary to Law”? is DENIED.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this VN, of December, 2025.

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

29 Rec. Doc. 134.